thepaisleypanda Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 I only know 2 people who are voting yes. I know about 30 folk who have all said they will vote no. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Nae Pals!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 That's me convinced then! DOWNING STREET KNOWS BEST!!! Was there ever any proof that this was a purchase by Number 11 made at the taxpayers expense for the purpose of individual consumption by the Chancellor? It should be quite easy to find out since expenses are now more tightly monitored. The reason I ask is that in the past i've had a number of items I have bought online delivered to my workplace, as have several of my colleagues - including a case of that Buddie Beer which was a Christmas gift for a mate of mine. Now it may have been delivered to my workplace but it was most definitely a purchase made from my money, my bank account, using my debit card. Who's to say this wasn't similar? What we do know is that Alex Salmond went to the US, spent a shitload of taxpayers money and a considerable amount of that money still hasn't been accounted for. It's not as though Salmond doesn't have previous either. His food claim of £400 per month for a period when parliament was in recess and £1,700 worth of food claimed even when he didn't attend at Westminster is a matter of public record these days. He was even exposed by Westminster claiming £9 for alcohol the fat chancer had taken from a hotel mini bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 There's something stinking regarding that. Surely he's just trying to sound like Ed Milliband on the phone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 I thought you would have recognized the irony/humour in my post regarding you posting there would be no need for a DWP in an Independent Scotland. i never meant to suggest there was no need for the DWP just that the existing DWP cannot have employees in an independent scotland. the majority of work in my office and offices based all over scotland comes from people who live in england and wales, work is spread evenly throughout the department within the virtual telephony network (you can be connected to any office in the uk when you call or claim online) scotland has around 12% of the population total so i reckon its fair to say 88% of DWP jobs in scotland will not be needed if independence is won. i was in 2 minds about your post being in jest, cant tell humour in typewritten words very easily, so appologies to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 That's me convinced then! DOWNING STREET KNOWS BEST!!! i freely admit that all politicians are nose in the trough types,just that we would not be rid of them in any independent country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 buddiecat, you are mistaken. There is associated security costs which aren't divulged but do have receipts. Just they aren't individually published. why are they not simply labelled as security costs then and how do you know of them if they are not divulged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 Was there ever any proof that this was a purchase by Number 11 made at the taxpayers expense for the purpose of individual consumption by the Chancellor? It should be quite easy to find out since expenses are now more tightly monitored. Nope. therein lies the point! - Downing St officials ordered the booze for "official purposes" - to slate Mr Salmond for spending money for same - defeats you arguement (AGAIN!) PLUS: As I stated previously, the YES / no referendum is not a vote for/against Mr Salmond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 Nope. therein lies the point! - Downing St officials ordered the booze for "official purposes" - to slate Mr Salmond for spending money for same - defeats you arguement (AGAIN!) PLUS: As I stated previously, the YES / no referendum is not a vote for/against Mr Salmond Well no - that doesn't quite cover it. So we know that No 11 ordered some cases of champagne for official purposes and I presume we know how much it cost? So why don't we know what Alex Salmond did with £50,000 odd of taxpayers money? And Cockles assertion it was for security surely doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Why the f**k would an unknown politician of no political significance anywhere in the world need £54,000 of security to protect him at the Ryder Cup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 The reason I ask is that in the past i've had a number of items I have bought online delivered to my workplace, as have several of my colleagues - including a case of that Buddie Beer which was a Christmas gift for a mate of mine. Now it may have been delivered to my workplace but it was most definitely a purchase made from my money, my bank account, using my debit card. Who's to say this wasn't similar? Absolutely fine (assuming the EMPLOYER thinks it will be non-disruptive to regular business) A new mobile? / concert tickets? / burds birthday pressie? - all fine! - An office lackey on £20k a year is UNLIKELY to have 30 x Moet delivered to "the office!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 Absolutely fine (assuming the EMPLOYER thinks it will be non-disruptive to regular business) A new mobile? / concert tickets? / burds birthday pressie? - all fine! - An office lackey on £20k a year is UNLIKELY to have 30 x Moet delivered to "the office!" George Osbourne is hardly an office lackey on £20k per annum though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 So we know that No 11 ordered some cases of champagne for official purposes and I presume we know how much it cost? Yeah - probably!! (If you can be arsed looking!) So why don't we know what Alex Salmond did with £50,000 odd of taxpayers money? Ask him! There are procedures in place for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 George Osbourne is hardly an office lackey on £20k per annum though. Exactly! Thus, we are agreed that the Moet was for "official reasons" paid for by "us" - when we are "all in this together!" - & most of us are having to reign back on luxuries & in many cases basics! (I need to go & check where the butler is - this shampoo is getting a tad tepid! - Back in a mo' ole chap!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 No need for an apology. Didn't know there was as much as an imbalance as that. Is it possible that other Government departments have a counter imbalance and employment moved (ie TUPE) from one agency to another is possible. tupe in itself will be a major danger because it may possibly happen before any total split, DWP employees in scotland could be tuped over to scottish government before any split if yes wins,and it is obviously unknown what amount of redundancy pay one could expect,not that i would be due much for my 10 years anyway, i'm afraid a yes vote will mean the scrapheap for possibly me and certainly for a vast majority of existing uk government workers in scotland. not a lot of jobs available for over 50's i'm afraid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 Exactly! Thus, we are agreed that the Moet was for "official reasons" paid for by "us" - when we are "all in this together!" - & most of us are having to reign back on luxuries & in many cases basics! (I need to go & check where the butler is - this shampoo is getting a tad tepid! - Back in a mo' ole chap!) Sorry? I think we are crossing wires somewhere. I was suggesting the possibility that Mr Osbourne may have simply been taking delivery of a personal purchase at his own workplace. As far as I could gather you seemed to be claiming that this was OK but stated that it was unlikely that an "office lackey" on £20,000 per annum might make the purchase. To which I pointed out that Mr Osbourne is hardly on £20k. Is it the value of the good bought that causes you a problem? Why should that matter if he has purchased them out of his own pocket? If it is true that it was bought by No11 for "official reasons" - that too could be justified if No11 was - for example - entertaining foreign heads of industry with a view to bringing inward investment into the UK. If you want to put this into context look at the hospitality spread that is put on for visiting directors from other football clubs at St Mirren Park. No-one bats an eyelid that St Mirren don't do their hospitality shopping at Iceland. However if the purchase of all that champagne was misappropriated then I would hope that the standards and privileges committee would call Mr Osbourne to account as they have done with many MP's in recent years. Now Alex Salmond and this money that's disappeared? Any Nationalists want to condemn either the poor accounting that has led to Salmond getting away with this money disappearing or is there one rule for Westminster politicians and another completely for the First Minister of Scotland? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 tpp, is currently on his way to A&E to get his stomach pumped. Ya beauty! - I'm getting PUMPED tonight!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 Sorry? I think we are crossing wires somewhere. Agreed! I was suggesting the possibility that Mr Osbourne may have simply been taking delivery of a personal purchase at his own workplace. As far as I could gather you seemed to be claiming that this was OK but stated that it was unlikely that an "office lackey" on £20,000 per annum might make the purchase. To which I pointed out that Mr Osbourne is hardly on £20k. Is it the value of the good bought that causes you a problem? Why should that matter if he has purchased them out of his own pocket? If it is true that it was bought by No11 for "official reasons" - that too could be justified if No11 was - for example - entertaining foreign heads of industry with a view to bringing inward investment into the UK. If you want to put this into context look at the hospitality spread that is put on for visiting directors from other football clubs at St Mirren Park. No-one bats an eyelid that St Mirren don't do their hospitality shopping at Iceland. However if the purchase of all that champagne was misappropriated then I would hope that the standards and privileges committee would call Mr Osbourne to account as they have done with many MP's in recent years. Now Alex Salmond and this money that's disappeared? Any Nationalists want to condemn either the poor accounting that has led to Salmond getting away with this money disappearing or is there one rule for Westminster politicians and another completely for the First Minister of Scotland? No, minor matters (mobiles / tickets etc) - to the workplace is fine regardless of status. We ALL know that the delivery was for "official reasons" - which, in itself isn't a problem. Of course food & drink gets delivered to 10/11 Downing St as does bog-roll & everything else. Perhaps DC / EB were indeed entertaining "important" people - that's what we pay them to do, as we also pay AS to do for us locally & to represent us globally, which is something that those in the Commons fail to do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 Why do you assume that the current lot of politicians in Holyrood would still be there? Would the current Scots MPs at Westminster not be looking to get on the gravy train here when they lose the Westminster gravy train? Or are you assuming that all the current Scots MPs would all f**k off to rUK? Why would that be? So where's this link between the SNLA and the Yes campaign? Now we know you're lying. So how much does security cost then Dorothy? What do you get for £54k these days? You should know, you're a rich important person. i expect all politicians in any new independent country to be amateur, none of them have experience of making decisions in a newly independent country. i dont think it's sensible to think that the unknown will be good for your country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 This should help the cause. . http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/orange-order-vows-march-to-save-union-will-go-ahead-after-violence-mars-glasgow-walk.24682752 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 What you describe is one of the reasons i wish that both the governments could have talked and gave us information regarding the split before we are to vote. But as i think you'd agree it is not in the rUK interest to aid the break up and in my opinion thats where i can see why it is a step to far into the unknown for some. that sort of sums up my whole point, there are far too many unknowns,i would not be surprised if the scottish government yes campaigners do not expect to win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 i dont expect sensible answers from people who think an independent scotland would be a good thingWOW!How would a country being independent not be a good thing? Or is it specifically Scotland being independent that is not good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 This should help the cause. . http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/orange-order-vows-march-to-save-union-will-go-ahead-after-violence-mars-glasgow-walk.24682752 Now that the Grand Orange Lodge has registered with the electoral commission, are they allowed to don uniforms and march during the official campaign period? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 Here's a wee exercise for folk. Why not ask 10 people you know how they are going to vote and post your percentages here. Don't ask them leading questions or try to influence them. Just simply ask 10 folk and let's see whether we get the same results as pollsters are getting. Me and my two sons are No voters.- 3 No My eldest sons girlfriends family are all No voters - 4 No My Sister will vote Yes - 1 Yes My Mum has stayed diplomatic and claims she doesn't know - 1 Don't Know In my girlfriends house she and her daughter intend to vote No - 2 No And her daughters boyfriend who is half Welsh and half English is voting Yes because he's stationed in Edinburgh with the British Army and he believes that if Scotland becomes Independent the British Army will have to pay him extra for being stationed abroad - 1 Yes. My sons claim that my ex wife and her new boyfriend will vote Yes - 2 Yes. So that's 9 No - 64.28% 4 Yes - 28.57% 1 Don't know. - 7.14% Some people on here might use this as yet another example of how Dickson cant count... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 WOW! How would a country being independent not be a good thing? Or is it specifically Scotland being independent that is not good? my point here is that i do not think it is sensible to assume that something which is largely unknown can be good for your country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Bundy Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 tupe in itself will be a major danger because it may possibly happen before any total split, DWP employees in scotland could be tuped over to scottish government before any split if yes wins,and it is obviously unknown what amount of redundancy pay one could expect,not that i would be due much for my 10 years anyway, i'm afraid a yes vote will mean the scrapheap for possibly me and certainly for a vast majority of existing uk government workers in scotland. not a lot of jobs available for over 50's i'm afraid BC, You more than any other Bitter Together " Fearty " should know all about Poverty, As you speak to the vast majority on a daily basis in your secure Employment manning the Phones at DWP , JCP ? Tell me this,Who would you class as the undeserving Poor or the deserving Poor - out of the official figures of 820,000 people living in Poverty in a small country like our own ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 my point here is that i do not think it is sensible to assume that something which is largely unknown can be good for your country Ah! That's a wee bit different from what you posted originally though remaining in Uk is largely unknown as well. Will we remain in EU after 2017 for example. How many more billions will need to be cut in austerity is another example. How far right will labour lurch in order to get elected instead of tories who are heading further rightto deal with ukip? that's a bit unknown at present as well? What will happen to the housing bubble in Greater London? Maybe more relevent would be - when will it pop???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.